Thursday, May 31, 2012
The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.
This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world — and some of his killers have killed Americans.
We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own — and not the military after congressional authorization — to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck.
He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn’t want to talk about this, but he doesn’t deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod — the president’s campaign manager — has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?
Can the president legally do this? In a word: No.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
With the mainstream’s agenda of pushing Mitt Romney down Republican voters’ throats even though no one has clinched the nomination yet, will South Dakota provide some much needed push-back by coming out in droves in favor of the other candidate still in the race, Ron Paul?
Although it barely made a whisper in the national news, the fact is that the very first state that had polled Ron Paul in first place was actually South Dakota. This was way back in December when there was still a crowded field of challengers in the race. While a poll that old cannot be relied upon today, it is certainly an indicator of support that could be seized upon if there is a significant effort put forth by grassroots activists reminding voters that there are still 2 candidates left in this race.
The truth is that the Paul campaign has been racking up endorsements throughout South Dakota over the past week. Although the most recent comments made by Sioux Falls City Councilman, Kermit Staggers is not an official endorsement, it has gone mega viral over the last few days. In a recent op-ed written by Staggers in the Argus Leader, one of his last sentences has sparked the already burning flame of anti-establishment activism throughout the state.
If Romney wins overwhelmingly, the message would be that state Republicans are satisfied with their party’s presumptive nominee. But if Paul wins a large percentage of the vote plus delegates, the message would be that Republicans are not satisfied with Romney and/or that the cause of freedom and liberty still resonates in the hearts of South Dakotans.
Ron Paul supporters filed en masse to run for Republican Party precinct committee officers, grass-roots elected seats that will be on this year’s primary election ballot.
The goal, said one PCO race newcomer, is to return the party to the principles it used to have.
“It needs to change,” said Greg Parsons, who is running against PCO Kathy Kershner. “I do have some issues with establishment Republicans. On the contrary, I think we are, in fact, the real, true conservative Republicans.”
PCO seats, elected every two years, often receive no interest, or only one person files. This year, because of a flood of interest in Republican PCO seats, many more contested races will be on the ballot.
Republican Party PCOs vote on endorsements and select local party leadership, something the newly elected and re-elected officers will do this December.
Of 152 Republican PCO races, 63 have two or more candidates, according to Whatcom County Auditor’s Office data. Only the contested races will appear on the ballot.
Southern Europe’s debtor states must pledge their gold reserves and national treasure as collateral under a €2.3 trillion stabilisation plan gaining momentum in Germany.
The German scheme — known as the European Redemption Pact — offers a form of “Eurobonds Lite” that can be squared with the German constitution and breaks the political logjam. It is a highly creative way out of the debt crisis, but is not a soft option for Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other states in trouble.
The plan is drafted by the German Council of Economic Experts and inspired by Alexander Hamilton’s Sinking Fund in the United States — created in 1790 to clean up the morass of debts left by the Revolutionary War. Flourishing Virginia was comparable to Germany today.
Chancellor Angela Merkel shot down the proposals last November as “completely impossible”, but Europe’s crisis has since festered, and her Christian Democrat party has since suffered crushing defeats in regional elections.
The Social Democrat opposition supports the idea. The Greens say they will block ratification of the EU Fiscal Compact in the German Bundesrat — or upper house — unless Mrs Merkel relents.
“The Redemption Pact cleverly combines the advantages of lower interest rates through joint European borrowing with a reduction of debt,” says Green leader Jürgen Trittin. “Joint liability would be limited in both time and scale.”
The plan splits the public debts of EMU states. Anything up to the Maastricht limit of 60pc of GDP would remain sovereign. Anything over 60pc would be transfered gradually into the redemption fund. This would be covered by joint bonds.
In what may be the most stunning revelation of the ongoing GOP presidential nomination process, it has been discovered that in 2008, the RNC Legal Counsel legally interpreted the RNC rules and concluded that all delegates, regardless of state party rules, could vote for whomever he or she chooses at the Republican National Convention. This legal inquiry by the RNC was the result of a delegate’s desire not to vote for a candidate who did not represent his principles. The significance of this legal interpretation by the RNC lawyers is that all delegates are free to vote for any candidate regardless of any such “binding”. Because the RNC was the organization that conducted this legal examination, their ruling trumps all state GOP rules.
In the past, “bound” delegates have attempted to vote for a candidate they were not “bound” to and not once have they been disallowed. Not only is there credible legal interpretation of this scenario, it has been found that there has never been a “bounded” delegate forced upon his or her will to vote for a “designated” candidate by his or her state GOP party. This ruling has the potential to unseat Mitt Romney as the “inevitable nominee” with Ron Paul supporters winning delegate positions in multiple states. Paul supporters are also becoming delegates that are “bound” to vote for Mitt Romney as we saw recently in Massachusetts where out of the 19 delegates allocated, 16 are known Ron Paul supporters. The consensus is that if a candidate wins the primary popular vote, that candidate is awarded all delegates.
Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, ‘The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose” - Legal statement by the RNC Legal Counsel